Yeah this is most likely the case, do you have any estimate on number of articles you have come across that would fall in this category? Because generally if we don't have a substantial number of them we just use the plain stub template. As long as there are a good number of articles that would fall in this category I would have no problem with it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a food stub for the food articles because they are a growing number of them but that's not up to me to decide it's a group discussion.... plus i suck at making stubs :P -- ಠ_ಠ!i!King OF ZE Ravenz!i!ಠ_ಠ (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went through Category:Foods and started counting and got to about 180. However, there are about 370 more articles to go through, but a few are not stubs. So there are probably at least 200 that will use this template. Megan|talkchanges02:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say go for it; but you know me, always inserting my opinion into conversations that do not concern me. ;) Lauryn (u • t • c)02:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have such a vast number of bio-stubs we can now start to be more specific, for instance {{Sports-bio-stub}}. Right now, even with just footballers, and just German, Italian and English ones at that, we have over 600 pages, the majority of which are stubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I am not a fan of the look of the sports stub template. The icon is too large and the ball in it looks way off. The ball is too angular instead of round. Can we choose another icon? Either way (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm the only one who likes the other icon, as the new one (per Esther) doesn't have a person on it. Here are some differentoptions. As you can see, none of them seem appropriate for the stub, but they were the closest thing I could find. I really think the first icon is the way to go. And Either Way, if you don't like the size, change the px #. BTW, if we are also thinking about movie-bio-stub, may I suggest this icon? mccon9914:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a new version using the ball that Griffinofwales suggested.
Sport bio stub icon Version 2
. When the image becomes this small, it does lose some of its "roundness". As to the size of the icon on the stub istself, that can easily be modified. Peterdownunder (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new icon Peterdownunder has suggested using the ball Griffnofwales suggested (it would be good if it was a little bigger than it is in the picture shown here). And if there is going to be a movie-bio-stub, I think Ian's suggestion is good. —Classical Esther05:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tested the stub on Aaron Rodgers but it is not adding him to the page for Sportspeople stubs. Does someone who understands templates want to have a look and solve it? I have had a look but can not find anything obvious. Peterdownunder (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have made a new template {{Movie-bio-stub}} using the icon suggested above by I-on. Tested and working. As it is only a stub, it can include TV actors, I do not think we need to make a separate stub. At the moment it links to [[Category:Movie actor stubs]], which links to [[Category:Film actors]]. Having been involved in the discussion above about film or movie, I have not made any other changes, though I think the Film actors cat should be renamed to keep consistency through the project.Peterdownunder (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the name of this to actor-stub. Movie-bio-stub makes no sense because you don't have a biography of a movie. I know what you are trying to get at but its not really that clear. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why we haven't categorised our stubs, like they do on en.wiki? This may have been discussed before so forgive me if I missed it, please point me in the direction of any earlier talks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its because up until fairly recently we only had the one stub tag. So no one took the time to create the categories as they created the new stubs. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any numbers? Categories we can check to verify this? Is there a higher level stub category that could be used first? One of the benefits of having few categories at the moment is that we can accurately determine where stubs should go and fit in, without ending up with much cruft. Goblin00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Stop. Do any more, and I'll personally block you for disruption. We've got a clearly defined policy for stubs, and this is clearly still in progress. You can't form a consensus in less than 24 hours on an obscure talk page. Goblin16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
Threatening to block someone for carrying out apparent consensus (one which only you are opposing) is absolutely inappropriate. Simmer down. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AWB lists 953 pages. What are those 953? Math stubs? If so, then yes, the stub should be created, but I'll let discussion continue until a few more people comment. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest math articles go into the more generic sci-stub. Remember we are trying to not have a million small value stubs out there. We are just trying to get general groupings. And the maths fall under sciences. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretical computer science is the exact kind of article that should go under science. It even has the word science in it... -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ A change of subject: I don't know who has been stub-sorting, but articles like this one have been tagged with the stub, even though the template doesn't even exist. It looks very ugly on the page. Should we remove them 'til further notice? I-on/talk/book/sand15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think consensus has been reached yet on if its a good stub. Until then it should be removed from the pages that link to it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of our articles about maths related articles are stub. The number mentioned above (~950) indicates that a stub for maths articles might be useful. I think out of this number of articles about or at least 500 articles are stubs. I think a maths stub is useful. Barrastalk16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of your countless excuses PiRSquared17, I decided it would be time consuming for you to do it, thus I did it myself. I counted 159 stubs in the cat. I am not sure if I was supposed to count the subcats too (I didn't think so. As griff stated Count the stubs in the category. Also, the # I counted may not be 100% accurate, as I used popups to count them and some articles may be a stub, but not marked with the template. But I don't think many articles were like that, and for the ones I found, I added to the total. I hope my stub-count helps. Happy editing, I-on/talk/book/sand23:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I so far count about 224. I just finished counting the subcat Mathematicians and all Mathematicians's subcat's (I hope you meant to count the subcats of the subcats too because that's what I'm doing). I will finish later if no one else gets to it first. Happy editing, I-on/talk/book/sand21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin revert it to the way it was before deleted? Can I use my bot to sort into this type (it might find a few that I-on missed)? PiRSquared1723:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My god will you get some damn patience? We will let you know when it is approved and ready to go. We have not yet agreed on what it should look like. Either way (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this will be put into a stub template at about 30 pixels, I have displayed them here at this size to get a better idea of what they will look on each page:
Personally I like the square root with the division being my second choice. Either way (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ It has been a few days since somebody commented on this and I think we have come to a consensus. I believe we are all okay with If none object and the template is approved, I will make the template. Thanks, I-on/talk/book/sand19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<-Well, of the users commenting, it seems that we are have agreed to a template and the icon for the template. As of now, all stubs relating to Mathematics can be tagged with {{Math-stub}}. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If people are going to go rampant placing stub tags everywhere. Could you atleast put them in the right place? They are supposed to be located below the Categories with two blank lines between them and the categories per the MOS. Its not the biggest deal right now, but if we begin categorizing automatically via placement of stub tags. It will keep the categories sorted properly and avoid having to move them in the future if this is done now. Thanks -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, I added the stub as I just looked at the creation time which was in March while a was not really around. So I thought it was approved. Thanks Griffin for noticing this. -Barrastalk21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the 250 limit, or indeed any limit, is daft. We are not paper and so who cares if a stub template get created? We should have a similar set of stub templates to en. fr33kman21:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we just go back to having a single stub tag. We never should have opened the doors to other stub types. Since we don't actually categorize by stub here, they serve no real purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there should be any requirement for a new stub type. It really does not matter, but the 250+ pages is OK. There should definitely be more than one stub type. πr2 (talk • changes) 23:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem not to have a suitable stub for dance, which admittedly is a weak area in Simple and in enWP. Also, we don't have a performing arts stub or category. That term unites dance, theatre and some other forms. I'm at a loss... any suggestions? Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a section for the arts, but you are right no general stub. Perhaps {{performing-arts-stub}} for now until we have enough articles to warrant breaking out a seperate stub like the current movie and music stubs under the arts section. -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Performing arts is quite a wide category, though under-represented on this wiki. Includes poetry reading, conjuring, anything on any stage, music, dance, opera, circus, puppetry... I am collecting pages under Category:Performing arts, but have only just started. enWP says it is contrasted with the plastic arts, which use materials such as paint and clay, and can be made into art objects. A stub would collect all those which, unlike music, have no stub of their own. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this being that its a pretty broad category and not too specific. I would say if no one has objected by Monday that you go ahead and create it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm embarrassed to say that I don't have the faintest idea how to go about creating a {{performing-arts-stub}}. Will someone else please do it? As for the mini-graphic: enWP has an attractive graphic of a dancer on its general dance stub. Theatre is the other major branch. enWP use the masks of tragedy and comedy as their main theatre graphic symbol. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how many writing-stubs do we have? Is it worth to create a template (based on how many article would be in this stub). -Barrastalk15:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See en:Professional wrestling. "Professional wrestling is a form of sporting theatre which contains strong elements of mock combat and catch wrestling." It is not a sport, but a performing art with sport elements. And, many pro wrestling articles will have this tag, because there are, as of now, 2 editors that edit pro wrestling articles, KingRaven44, and me. Both of us don't have time to make large articles for wrestlers. SimonKSK15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are about the wrestlers just mark them as {{bio-stub}}, if they are about the events then I would probably just use the above proposed {{tv-stub}}. This way you avoid the arguements on what it is. I don't think it should have its own stub. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting this stub before any more on villages in Hiiu county are created. The articles that are created already can be viewed here. Here is what the category will look like when all the articles in the category are created, with 200 pages. I would like to know if this stub is necessary before I create any more articles because, if it is, then it would be a lot easier to fix the existing 61 articles then finish the other 139 articles. Best, Battleaxe9872文/ テ17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We used to say at least 250(?) articles for a sub-stub. Also I agree with Griffin. Take 10 minutes to make one article with 10 sentences instead of taking one minute to make ten meaningless not really useful one line stubs. -Barras (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think this is getting far to specific for such a small community as us. The whole point of this project was to try and keep a control on creating stubs which were too specific. I highly doubt we have a subset of users that are working only on US bios or US geography. So the more generic US-stub or Bio-stub should be fine in these cases. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? It has a soccer ball that looks round. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Works well - Peterdownunder (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Done All the pages in the Category:Iowa have been tagged from {{US-stub}} to {{Iowa-stub}} --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 14:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Support I 
